approve_liquidator_token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description adds context about the implications of 'max' (unlimited spending until revoked) and the recommended exact amount. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and detailed instruction. Front-loaded with key action. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simple nature (approval with a key parameter), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter nuance. It also mentions the follow-up tool (moolah_liquidate) and revocation, making it complete for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all parameters (100%), baseline 3. The description significantly enriches the 'amount' parameter with actionable guidance beyond the schema, explaining the trade-offs of 'exact' vs 'max' and how to revoke.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'approve' and the specific resource 'loan token spending for the Moolah public liquidator contract'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling approval tools by naming the specific contract and linking to moolah_liquidate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Required before calling moolah_liquidate.' Provides guidance on amount usage and warns about 'max' only with user opt-in, and mentions revoking with amount='0'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.